Agenda - 03-17-2009 - 7a - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

3 • With the County's expected low nitrogen loading rate in its jurisdiction, decreasing by a fixed 35% in the Upper New Hope may be challenging (effectively creating a penalty for jurisdictions which pursued conservation measures prior to the 2001 baseline year), • Nutrient trading possibilities look promising and should be pursued with the urban jurisdictions on conservation and wetlands projects in the Upper New Hope Arm (Rural Buffer), thus allowing the towns another option for meeting their reduction needs • The need for State funding assistance to deal with the costs of implementing the rules has been noted by many local governments, and • The County has a long history of watershed protection dating to 1981 and notes the current water quality issues have long been anticipated. The Board may wish to use these points and the attached positions and materials to develop the key points of a position statement and/or resolution which could be developed by staff and brought back for action on April 7. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no impact associated with considering the draft position statement. The cost of implementing the Jordan Lake nutrient management rules has been estimated at up to $550 million for all local governments and utility providers in the Jordan Lake watershed. The estimated cost to Orange County government of these rules is not known since the first action required under the rules is a feasibility study that would result in more concrete cost estimates. Since development in the County's jurisdiction has been more rural in nature, with fewer structural ponds and stormwater devices, it is anticipated the County will be less impacted financially than its surrounding urban jurisdictions. However there still may be substantial unknown costs associated with new measures required to achieve the percentage- based nitrogen reduction, since the County's projected loading rate is already anticipated to be low and additional reductions may require funding for new conservation activities (or nutrient trading funding assistance from other jurisdictions). These costs would also be determined under the feasibility study. RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board discuss the implication and key topics bullets listed -along with previous comments, resolutions and proposed legislation - and provide staff a list of points for a County position statement or resolution that would be brought back for action on April 7. Specifically, possible starting. points for the position statement might be: 1) the previously-stated need for State financial assistance to implement the rules, 2) the "penalty" for jurisdictions with already-low loading rates by apercentage-reduction method for the entire sub-watershed, and 3) the possibility of conducting feasibility studies (with State-funding) before implementation of the rules, to better assess the actual costs and measures to each jurisdiction before permanently adopting the rules.